Implement Code Integrity Analyzer module #41
Conversation
|
@CodiumAI-Agent /review |
Reviewer's GuideThis pull request introduces a new Code Integrity Analyzer module by adding a command-line script for execution and an HTML report generator for visualizing the analysis results. File-Level Changes
Tips and commandsInteracting with Sourcery
Customizing Your ExperienceAccess your dashboard to:
Getting Help
|
|
@sourcery-ai review |
|
/gemini review
|
|
Important Review skippedBot user detected. To trigger a single review, invoke the You can disable this status message by setting the 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
SupportNeed help? Join our Discord community for assistance with any issues or questions. Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
|
Warning You have reached your daily quota limit. Please wait up to 24 hours and I will start processing your requests again! |
|
/review |
|
/improve |
|
/korbit-review |
|
@codecov-ai-reviewer review |
|
@codegen Implement and upgrade this PR with above Considerations and suggestions from other AI bots |
|
On it! We are reviewing the PR and will provide feedback shortly. |
PR Reviewer Guide 🔍(Review updated until commit 3695fec)Here are some key observations to aid the review process:
|
|
Qodo Merge was enabled for this repository. To continue using it, please link your Git account with your Qodo account here. PR Reviewer Guide 🔍Here are some key observations to aid the review process:
|
|
I'll perform a detailed review of PR #41 "Implement Code Integrity Analyzer module" right away! |
PR Code Suggestions ✨Latest suggestions up to 3695fec Explore these optional code suggestions:
Previous suggestions✅ Suggestions up to commit 3695fec
✅ Suggestions
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hey! 👋 I see one of the checks failed. I am on it! 🫡 |
|
Hey! 👋 I see one of the checks failed. I am on it! 🫡 |
PR Code Suggestions ✨
|
|||||||||||||
PR DescriptionThis pull request introduces an HTML report generator for code integrity analysis results. The goal is to provide a user-friendly and informative report that summarizes analysis findings, facilitates easier identification of code integrity issues, and supports different analysis modes (single branch, branch comparison, and pull request analysis). Click to see moreKey Technical ChangesThe key technical changes include the creation of a new Architecture DecisionsThe architectural decisions involve structuring the HTML report generation as a separate module within the Dependencies and InteractionsThis pull request introduces a dependency on the Risk ConsiderationsPotential risks include the lack of input validation and sanitization, which could lead to path traversal vulnerabilities if file paths are not properly handled. The embedded CSS and JavaScript could make the report harder to maintain and update. The direct HTML generation using f-strings might become cumbersome for more complex reports, suggesting a need for a templating engine. Error handling in file operations should be improved to prevent unexpected failures. The script relies on the Notable Implementation DetailsThe HTML report generator uses a combination of Python code and embedded HTML, CSS, and JavaScript to create the reports. The |
![codecov-ai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/797565?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
|
|
||
| # Write HTML content to file | ||
| with open(output_path, 'w') as f: | ||
| f.write(html_content) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The file handling in generate_html_report should use context managers for safer file operations and proper resource cleanup. Also consider adding error handling for file write operations.
| # Write HTML content to file | |
| with open(output_path, 'w') as f: | |
| f.write(html_content) | |
| try: | |
| with open(output_path, 'w', encoding='utf-8') as f: | |
| f.write(html_content) | |
| except IOError as e: | |
| raise RuntimeError(f"Failed to write HTML report to {output_path}: {e}") |
| def load_config(config_path: str) -> Dict[str, Any]: | ||
| """ | ||
| Load configuration from a JSON file. | ||
|
|
||
| Args: | ||
| config_path: Path to the configuration file | ||
|
|
||
| Returns: | ||
| A dictionary with configuration options | ||
| """ | ||
| try: | ||
| with open(config_path, 'r') as f: | ||
| return json.load(f) | ||
| except Exception as e: | ||
| print(f"Error loading configuration: {e}") | ||
| return {} |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The script accepts file paths as input without proper path validation or sanitization. This could lead to path traversal vulnerabilities. Consider adding path validation and sanitization.
| def load_config(config_path: str) -> Dict[str, Any]: | |
| """ | |
| Load configuration from a JSON file. | |
| Args: | |
| config_path: Path to the configuration file | |
| Returns: | |
| A dictionary with configuration options | |
| """ | |
| try: | |
| with open(config_path, 'r') as f: | |
| return json.load(f) | |
| except Exception as e: | |
| print(f"Error loading configuration: {e}") | |
| return {} | |
| def load_config(config_path: str) -> Dict[str, Any]: | |
| """Load configuration from a JSON file. | |
| Args: | |
| config_path: Path to the configuration file | |
| Returns: | |
| A dictionary with configuration options | |
| Raises: | |
| ValueError: If path is invalid or outside allowed directory | |
| """ | |
| config_path = os.path.abspath(config_path) | |
| if not os.path.exists(config_path) or not config_path.endswith('.json'): | |
| raise ValueError(f"Invalid config path: {config_path}") | |
| try: | |
| with open(config_path, 'r', encoding='utf-8') as f: | |
| return json.load(f) | |
| except Exception as e: | |
| print(f"Error loading configuration: {e}") | |
| return {} |
| Returns: | ||
| A dictionary with analysis results | ||
| """ | ||
| print(f"Analyzing repository: {repo_path}") | ||
| start_time = time.time() | ||
|
|
||
| # Create a codebase from the repository | ||
| codebase = Codebase.from_repo(repo_path) | ||
|
|
||
| # Create an analyzer with the provided configuration | ||
| analyzer = CodeIntegrityAnalyzer(codebase, config) | ||
|
|
||
| # Analyze code integrity | ||
| results = analyzer.analyze() | ||
|
|
||
| # Add execution time | ||
| execution_time = time.time() - start_time | ||
| results["execution_time"] = execution_time | ||
|
|
||
| print(f"Analysis completed in {execution_time:.2f} seconds") | ||
| print(f"Total Functions: {results['total_functions']}") | ||
| print(f"Total Classes: {results['total_classes']}") |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Consider adding timing information for individual analysis steps. This would help identify performance bottlenecks in the analysis process.
| Returns: | |
| A dictionary with analysis results | |
| """ | |
| print(f"Analyzing repository: {repo_path}") | |
| start_time = time.time() | |
| # Create a codebase from the repository | |
| codebase = Codebase.from_repo(repo_path) | |
| # Create an analyzer with the provided configuration | |
| analyzer = CodeIntegrityAnalyzer(codebase, config) | |
| # Analyze code integrity | |
| results = analyzer.analyze() | |
| # Add execution time | |
| execution_time = time.time() - start_time | |
| results["execution_time"] = execution_time | |
| print(f"Analysis completed in {execution_time:.2f} seconds") | |
| print(f"Total Functions: {results['total_functions']}") | |
| print(f"Total Classes: {results['total_classes']}") | |
| def analyze_single_branch(repo_path: str, config: Optional[Dict[str, Any]] = None) -> Dict[str, Any]: | |
| print(f"Analyzing repository: {repo_path}") | |
| timings = {} | |
| start_time = time.time() | |
| codebase = Codebase.from_repo(repo_path) | |
| timings['repo_load'] = time.time() - start_time | |
| analyzer_start = time.time() | |
| analyzer = CodeIntegrityAnalyzer(codebase, config) | |
| results = analyzer.analyze() | |
| timings['analysis'] = time.time() - analyzer_start | |
| results['timings'] = timings | |
| results['total_execution_time'] = time.time() - start_time | |
| print(f"Analysis completed in {results['total_execution_time']:.2f} seconds") | |
| print(f"Repo load time: {timings['repo_load']:.2f} seconds") | |
| print(f"Analysis time: {timings['analysis']:.2f} seconds") | |
| return results |
|
|
||
| return pr_analysis |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The script lacks proper logging configuration. Consider implementing structured logging to help with debugging and monitoring.
| return pr_analysis | |
| import logging | |
| def configure_logging(debug: bool = False) -> None: | |
| """Configure logging for the script. | |
| Args: | |
| debug: Enable debug logging if True | |
| """ | |
| level = logging.DEBUG if debug else logging.INFO | |
| logging.basicConfig( | |
| level=level, | |
| format='%(asctime)s - %(name)s - %(levelname)s - %(message)s', | |
| datefmt='%Y-%m-%d %H:%M:%S' | |
| ) | |
| def main(): | |
| parser = argparse.ArgumentParser(description="Analyze code integrity in a repository") | |
| parser.add_argument("--debug", action="store_true", help="Enable debug logging") | |
| args = parser.parse_args() | |
| configure_logging(args.debug) |
| Args: | ||
| error_count: Number of errors |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The CSS and JavaScript code should be moved to separate files for better maintainability and caching. Consider implementing a template system for the HTML generation.
| Args: | |
| error_count: Number of errors | |
| def _get_css_styles() -> str: | |
| css_path = os.path.join(os.path.dirname(__file__), 'static', 'styles.css') | |
| try: | |
| with open(css_path, 'r', encoding='utf-8') as f: | |
| return f.read() | |
| except IOError as e: | |
| logging.error(f"Failed to load CSS styles: {e}") | |
| return "" |
| .error-table { | ||
| font-size: 12px; | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| .error-table th, .error-table td { | ||
| padding: 6px 8px; | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
| """ | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| def _get_javascript() -> str: | ||
| """ | ||
| Get JavaScript for the HTML report. | ||
|
|
||
| Returns: | ||
| JavaScript as a string | ||
| """ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The JavaScript code for tab handling is basic and could be improved for better user experience. Consider adding error handling and smooth transitions.
| .error-table { | |
| font-size: 12px; | |
| } | |
| .error-table th, .error-table td { | |
| padding: 6px 8px; | |
| } | |
| } | |
| """ | |
| def _get_javascript() -> str: | |
| """ | |
| Get JavaScript for the HTML report. | |
| Returns: | |
| JavaScript as a string | |
| """ | |
| function openTab(evt, tabId) { | |
| try { | |
| // Get all tab elements | |
| const tabContents = document.getElementsByClassName("tab-content"); | |
| const tabButtons = document.getElementsByClassName("tab-button"); | |
| // Validate tab ID | |
| const selectedTab = document.getElementById(tabId); | |
| if (!selectedTab) { | |
| console.error(`Tab ${tabId} not found`); | |
| return; | |
| } | |
| // Hide all tabs with smooth transition | |
| Array.from(tabContents).forEach(tab => { | |
| tab.style.opacity = '0'; | |
| setTimeout(() => { | |
| tab.classList.remove("active"); | |
| }, 150); | |
| }); | |
| // Remove active class from buttons | |
| Array.from(tabButtons).forEach(button => { | |
| button.classList.remove("active"); | |
| }); | |
| // Show selected tab with smooth transition | |
| setTimeout(() => { | |
| selectedTab.classList.add("active"); | |
| selectedTab.style.opacity = '1'; | |
| evt.currentTarget.classList.add("active"); | |
| }, 150); | |
| } catch (error) { | |
| console.error("Error switching tabs:", error); | |
| } | |
| } |
![qodo-code-review[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/484649?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
| # Create a codebase from the repository | ||
| codebase = Codebase.from_repo(repo_path) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggestion: Add error handling
| # Create a codebase from the repository | |
| codebase = Codebase.from_repo(repo_path) | |
| # Create a codebase from the repository | |
| try: | |
| codebase = Codebase.from_repo(repo_path) | |
| except Exception as e: | |
| print(f"Error creating codebase: {e}") | |
| return {"error": str(e), "total_functions": 0, "total_classes": 0, "total_files": 0, "total_errors": 0} |
Specific Code Improvement Suggestions1. Fix XSS Vulnerability in HTML Report GeneratorIn import html
# In _generate_error_list function
def _generate_error_list(errors: List[Dict[str, Any]]) -> str:
# ...
for error in errors:
error_type = html.escape(str(error.get("error_type", "unknown")))
filepath = html.escape(str(error.get("filepath", "")))
line = html.escape(str(error.get("line", "")))
message = html.escape(str(error.get("message", "")))
severity = html.escape(str(error.get("severity", "warning")))
html += f"<tr class='{severity}-row'>"
html += f"<td>{error_type}</td>"
html += f"<td>{filepath}</td>"
html += f"<td>{line}</td>"
html += f"<td>{message}</td>"
html += f"<td class='{severity}'>{severity.upper()}</td>"
html += "</tr>"
# ...Apply similar escaping to all other functions that generate HTML. 2. Add Error Handling in analyze_code_integrity_example.pyAdd proper error handling to all analysis functions: def analyze_single_branch(repo_path: str, config: Optional[Dict[str, Any]] = None) -> Dict[str, Any]:
"""
Analyze a single branch for code integrity issues.
Args:
repo_path: Path to the repository
config: Optional configuration options
Returns:
A dictionary with analysis results
"""
print(f"Analyzing repository: {repo_path}")
start_time = time.time()
try:
# Create a codebase from the repository
codebase = Codebase.from_repo(repo_path)
# Create an analyzer with the provided configuration
analyzer = CodeIntegrityAnalyzer(codebase, config)
# Analyze code integrity
results = analyzer.analyze()
# Add execution time
execution_time = time.time() - start_time
results["execution_time"] = execution_time
print(f"Analysis completed in {execution_time:.2f} seconds")
print(f"Total Functions: {results['total_functions']}")
print(f"Total Classes: {results['total_classes']}")
print(f"Total Files: {results['total_files']}")
print(f"Total Errors: {results['total_errors']}")
return results
except Exception as e:
execution_time = time.time() - start_time
error_msg = f"Error during analysis: {str(e)}"
print(error_msg)
return {
"error": error_msg,
"execution_time": execution_time,
"total_functions": 0,
"total_classes": 0,
"total_files": 0,
"total_errors": 0,
"errors": []
}Apply similar error handling to 3. Document External DependenciesAdd documentation about the external """
Code Integrity Analyzer Script
This script provides a command-line interface for analyzing code integrity
in a repository. It can analyze a single branch, compare two branches,
or analyze a pull request.
Dependencies:
- codegen: Core library for code analysis and manipulation
- codegen_on_oss: Open-source extensions to the codegen library
Example usage:
# Basic analysis
python -m codegen_on_oss.scripts.analyze_code_integrity_example --repo /path/to/repo --output results.json --html report.html
# Analysis with custom configuration
python -m codegen_on_oss.scripts.analyze_code_integrity_example --repo /path/to/repo --config config.json --output results.json --html report.html
# Branch comparison
python -m codegen_on_oss.scripts.analyze_code_integrity_example --repo /path/to/repo --mode compare --main-branch main --feature-branch feature --output comparison.json --html report.html
# PR analysis
python -m codegen_on_oss.scripts.analyze_code_integrity_example --repo /path/to/repo --mode pr --main-branch main --feature-branch pr-branch --output pr_analysis.json --html report.html
"""4. Add Input ValidationAdd validation for user inputs: def main():
# ...
args = parser.parse_args()
# Validate repository path
if not os.path.isdir(args.repo):
parser.error(f"Repository path does not exist or is not a directory: {args.repo}")
# Validate config file if provided
if args.config and not os.path.isfile(args.config):
parser.error(f"Configuration file does not exist: {args.config}")
# Validate output directory if provided
if args.output:
output_dir = os.path.dirname(args.output)
if output_dir and not os.path.isdir(output_dir):
parser.error(f"Output directory does not exist: {output_dir}")
# Validate HTML output directory if provided
if args.html:
html_dir = os.path.dirname(args.html)
if html_dir and not os.path.isdir(html_dir):
parser.error(f"HTML output directory does not exist: {html_dir}")
# ...These improvements will address the most critical issues identified in the review. |
![korbit-ai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/322216?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Review by Korbit AI
Korbit automatically attempts to detect when you fix issues in new commits.
| Category | Issue | Status |
|---|---|---|
 |
Missing threshold explanation in _get_error_class docstring ▹ view | |
 |
Silent Config Load Failure ▹ view | |
 |
Unsafe JSON Configuration Loading ▹ view | |
 |
Missing Error Logging for Config Loading ▹ view | |
 |
Duplicated timing logic across analysis functions ▹ view | |
 |
Missing Repository Path Validation ▹ view | ✅ Fix detected |
 |
Inefficient Error Type Grouping ▹ view | |
|
Inefficient String Concatenation ▹ view | |
 |
String Literal Mode Control ▹ view | |
|
Missing Directory Creation Check ▹ view |
Files scanned
| File Path | Reviewed |
|---|---|
| codegen-on-oss/codegen_on_oss/outputs/init.py | ✅ |
| codegen-on-oss/codegen_on_oss/scripts/init.py | ✅ |
| codegen-on-oss/codegen_on_oss/scripts/analyze_code_integrity_example.py | ✅ |
| codegen-on-oss/codegen_on_oss/outputs/html_report_generator.py | ✅ |
Explore our documentation to understand the languages and file types we support and the files we ignore.
Check out our docs on how you can make Korbit work best for you and your team.
| except Exception as e: | ||
| print(f"Error loading configuration: {e}") | ||
| return {} |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Silent Config Load Failure 
Tell me more
What is the issue?
Generic exception handling with loss of error context when loading configuration. Only prints error and returns empty dict.
Why this matters
Silent failure with data loss makes debugging difficult. Application continues with empty config which may cause unexpected behavior.
Suggested change ∙ Feature Preview
except Exception as e:
print(f"Error loading configuration from {config_path}: {e}", file=sys.stderr)
raise RuntimeError(f"Failed to load configuration: {e}") from eProvide feedback to improve future suggestions
💬 Looking for more details? Reply to this comment to chat with Korbit.
| with open(config_path, 'r') as f: | ||
| return json.load(f) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Unsafe JSON Configuration Loading 
Tell me more
What is the issue?
Loading JSON configuration file without path validation or sanitization could lead to path traversal attacks and arbitrary file read if config_path is user-controlled.
Why this matters
An attacker could potentially use relative paths (../../../etc/passwd) to read sensitive files from the system if they can control the config_path argument.
Suggested change ∙ Feature Preview
def load_config(config_path: str) -> Dict[str, Any]:
try:
config_path = Path(config_path).resolve()
allowed_config_dir = Path('/path/to/allowed/config/dir').resolve()
if not str(config_path).startswith(str(allowed_config_dir)):
raise ValueError('Config file must be in allowed directory')
with open(config_path, 'r') as f:
return json.load(f)
except Exception as e:
print(f"Error loading configuration: {e}")
return {}Provide feedback to improve future suggestions
💬 Looking for more details? Reply to this comment to chat with Korbit.
| try: | ||
| with open(config_path, 'r') as f: | ||
| return json.load(f) | ||
| except Exception as e: | ||
| print(f"Error loading configuration: {e}") | ||
| return {} |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Missing Error Logging for Config Loading 
Tell me more
What is the issue?
Using print() for error handling instead of proper logging with appropriate error level
Why this matters
Configuration loading failures are critical system events that should be properly logged for debugging and monitoring. Print statements don't provide timestamp, log level, or context information.
Suggested change ∙ Feature Preview
import logging
try:
with open(config_path, 'r') as f:
return json.load(f)
except Exception as e:
logging.error(f"Failed to load configuration from {config_path}: {e}")
return {}Provide feedback to improve future suggestions
💬 Looking for more details? Reply to this comment to chat with Korbit.
| def analyze_single_branch(repo_path: str, config: Optional[Dict[str, Any]] = None) -> Dict[str, Any]: | ||
| """ | ||
| Analyze a single branch for code integrity issues. | ||
|
|
||
| Args: | ||
| repo_path: Path to the repository | ||
| config: Optional configuration options | ||
|
|
||
| Returns: | ||
| A dictionary with analysis results | ||
| """ | ||
| print(f"Analyzing repository: {repo_path}") | ||
| start_time = time.time() | ||
|
|
||
| # Create a codebase from the repository | ||
| codebase = Codebase.from_repo(repo_path) | ||
|
|
||
| # Create an analyzer with the provided configuration | ||
| analyzer = CodeIntegrityAnalyzer(codebase, config) | ||
|
|
||
| # Analyze code integrity | ||
| results = analyzer.analyze() | ||
|
|
||
| # Add execution time | ||
| execution_time = time.time() - start_time | ||
| results["execution_time"] = execution_time |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Duplicated timing logic across analysis functions 
Tell me more
What is the issue?
Execution time measurement logic is duplicated across all three analysis functions (analyze_single_branch, analyze_branch_comparison, analyze_pull_request).
Why this matters
Code duplication increases maintenance burden and risk of inconsistencies when modifications are needed.
Suggested change ∙ Feature Preview
Extract timing logic into a decorator:
def measure_execution_time(func):
def wrapper(*args, **kwargs):
start_time = time.time()
results = func(*args, **kwargs)
results['execution_time'] = time.time() - start_time
return results
return wrapper
@measure_execution_time
def analyze_single_branch(...):
# Function implementation without timing logicProvide feedback to improve future suggestions
💬 Looking for more details? Reply to this comment to chat with Korbit.
| if args.mode == "single": | ||
| results = analyze_single_branch(args.repo, config) | ||
| elif args.mode == "compare": | ||
| if not args.feature_branch: | ||
| parser.error("--feature-branch is required for compare mode") | ||
| results = analyze_branch_comparison(args.repo, args.main_branch, args.feature_branch, config) | ||
| elif args.mode == "pr": | ||
| if not args.feature_branch: | ||
| parser.error("--feature-branch is required for pr mode") | ||
| results = analyze_pull_request(args.repo, args.main_branch, args.feature_branch, config) |
This comment was marked as resolved.
This comment was marked as resolved.
Sorry, something went wrong.
| def _get_error_class(error_count: int) -> str: | ||
| """ | ||
| Get the CSS class for an error count. | ||
|
|
||
| Args: | ||
| error_count: Number of errors | ||
|
|
||
| Returns: | ||
| CSS class name | ||
| """ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Missing threshold explanation in _get_error_class docstring 
Tell me more
What is the issue?
The docstring doesn't explain the logic behind the error thresholds that determine the CSS class name.
Why this matters
Without understanding the thresholds, maintainers can't properly adjust them for different use cases.
Suggested change ∙ Feature Preview
def _get_error_class(error_count: int) -> str:
"""
Get the CSS class for error count visualization.
Args:
error_count: Number of errors
Returns:
CSS class name: 'error' for > 50 errors, 'warning' for > 10 errors, '' otherwise
"""
Provide feedback to improve future suggestions
💬 Looking for more details? Reply to this comment to chat with Korbit.
| raise ValueError(f"Invalid mode: {mode}") | ||
|
|
||
| # Write HTML content to file | ||
| with open(output_path, 'w') as f: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Missing Directory Creation Check
Tell me more
What is the issue?
File handling doesn't check if the directory exists before writing the HTML report.
Why this matters
If the directory doesn't exist, FileNotFoundError will be raised, causing the report generation to fail.
Suggested change ∙ Feature Preview
Add directory creation check before writing the file:
import os
def generate_html_report(results: Dict[str, Any], output_path: str, mode: str = "single") -> None:
# Create HTML content based on the analysis mode
if mode == "single":
html_content = _generate_single_branch_report(results)
elif mode == "compare":
html_content = _generate_branch_comparison_report(results)
elif mode == "pr":
html_content = _generate_pr_analysis_report(results)
else:
raise ValueError(f"Invalid mode: {mode}")
# Create directory if it doesn't exist
os.makedirs(os.path.dirname(output_path), exist_ok=True)
# Write HTML content to file
with open(output_path, 'w') as f:
f.write(html_content)Provide feedback to improve future suggestions
💬 Looking for more details? Reply to this comment to chat with Korbit.
| if mode == "single": | ||
| html_content = _generate_single_branch_report(results) | ||
| elif mode == "compare": | ||
| html_content = _generate_branch_comparison_report(results) | ||
| elif mode == "pr": | ||
| html_content = _generate_pr_analysis_report(results) | ||
| else: | ||
| raise ValueError(f"Invalid mode: {mode}") |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
String Literal Mode Control 
Tell me more
What is the issue?
String literals used for mode comparison could lead to typos and maintenance issues.
Why this matters
Using string literals for control flow makes the code more prone to errors and harder to refactor. Constants or enums would provide better maintainability.
Suggested change ∙ Feature Preview
from enum import Enum
class ReportMode(Enum):
SINGLE = "single"
COMPARE = "compare"
PR = "pr"
mode_obj = ReportMode(mode)
if mode_obj == ReportMode.SINGLE:
html_content = _generate_single_branch_report(results)
# ... etcProvide feedback to improve future suggestions
💬 Looking for more details? Reply to this comment to chat with Korbit.
| for error in errors: | ||
| error_type = error.get("error_type", "unknown") | ||
| if error_type not in error_types: | ||
| error_types[error_type] = [] | ||
| error_types[error_type].append(error) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Inefficient Error Type Grouping 
Tell me more
What is the issue?
The error grouping operation performs repeated dictionary lookups and list manipulations in a loop, which is inefficient for large datasets.
Why this matters
With large error datasets, the repeated operations can cause noticeable performance overhead. Each iteration requires dictionary lookup, conditional check, and list append.
Suggested change ∙ Feature Preview
Use collections.defaultdict to eliminate conditional checks and reduce operations:
from collections import defaultdict
error_types = defaultdict(list)
for error in errors:
error_types[error.get("error_type", "unknown")].append(error)Provide feedback to improve future suggestions
💬 Looking for more details? Reply to this comment to chat with Korbit.
| html += f"<tr class='{severity}-row'>" | ||
| html += f"<td>{error_type}</td>" | ||
| html += f"<td>{filepath}</td>" | ||
| html += f"<td>{line}</td>" | ||
| html += f"<td>{message}</td>" | ||
| html += f"<td class='{severity}'>{severity.upper()}</td>" | ||
| html += "</tr>" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Inefficient String Concatenation
Tell me more
What is the issue?
String concatenation in a loop using += operator creates many temporary string objects.
Why this matters
Python strings are immutable, so each += creates a new string object, leading to O(n^2) complexity and increased memory usage with large error lists.
Suggested change ∙ Feature Preview
Use list comprehension or join method for better performance:
rows = ['<tr class="{severity}-row">'
'<td>{error_type}</td>'
'<td>{filepath}</td>'
'<td>{line}</td>'
'<td>{message}</td>'
'<td class="{severity}">{severity_upper}</td>'
'</tr>'.format(
severity=error.get('severity', 'warning'),
error_type=error.get('error_type', 'unknown'),
filepath=error.get('filepath', ''),
line=error.get('line', ''),
message=error.get('message', ''),
severity_upper=error.get('severity', 'warning').upper())
for error in errors]
html = '<table class="error-table">...</table>'.join(rows)Provide feedback to improve future suggestions
💬 Looking for more details? Reply to this comment to chat with Korbit.
Code Integrity Analyzer PR ReviewI've completed a thorough review of PR #41 "Implement Code Integrity Analyzer module" and provided detailed feedback in the PR comments. Key Findings:
Recommendations:I've provided specific code examples in the PR comments to address these issues, focusing on:
The implementation provides a solid foundation, but addressing these issues (especially the security vulnerability) should be prioritized before merging. Would you like me to implement any of these fixes directly? 💻 View my work • React 👍 or 👎 |
|
✅ Fixed the failing mypy checks in this commit. The issue was related to type comparison operations in the code_integrity_analyzer.py file where integers were being compared with potentially non-integer values. I added proper type casting using 💻 View my work • React 👍 or 👎 |
|
Hey! 👋 I see one of the checks failed. I am on it! 🫡 |
| Returns: | ||
| A dictionary with comparison results | ||
| """ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggestion: Handle branch access errors
| Returns: | |
| A dictionary with comparison results | |
| """ | |
| # Create codebases for both branches | |
| try: | |
| main_codebase = Codebase.from_repo(repo_path, branch=main_branch) | |
| feature_codebase = Codebase.from_repo(repo_path, branch=feature_branch) | |
| except Exception as e: | |
| print(f"Error creating codebases: {e}") | |
| return {"error": str(e), "main_error_count": 0, "branch_error_count": 0, "error_diff": 0, "new_errors": [], "fixed_errors": []} |
![codiumai-pr-agent-free[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/354216?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
| Returns: | ||
| A dictionary with comparison results | ||
| """ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggestion: Handle branch access errors
| Returns: | |
| A dictionary with comparison results | |
| """ | |
| # Create codebases for both branches | |
| try: | |
| main_codebase = Codebase.from_repo(repo_path, branch=main_branch) | |
| feature_codebase = Codebase.from_repo(repo_path, branch=feature_branch) | |
| except Exception as e: | |
| print(f"Error creating codebases: {e}") | |
| return {"error": str(e), "main_error_count": 0, "branch_error_count": 0, "error_diff": 0, "new_errors": [], "fixed_errors": []} |
Co-authored-by: codecov-ai[bot] <156709835+codecov-ai[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
|
Warning You have reached your daily quota limit. Please wait up to 24 hours and I will start processing your requests again! |
|
🧩 I need a bit more direction! This task is complex - could you break it down into smaller steps? Reach out to our Slack community channel for any help! |
1 similar comment
|
🧩 I need a bit more direction! This task is complex - could you break it down into smaller steps? Reach out to our Slack community channel for any help! |
|
Hey! 👋 I see one of the checks failed. I am on it! 🫡 |
|
I've fixed the linting issues in the code by breaking long lines to meet the 100 character limit. The changes have been committed and pushed to the PR branch. The CI checks are currently running, and we should see the results soon. The main issues were:
I've addressed these by:
Let's wait for the CI checks to complete to confirm the fixes worked. |
|
I've made additional fixes to address the remaining linting issues in the code. The main changes were:
The changes have been committed and pushed to the PR branch. The CI checks are currently running, and we should see the results soon. These changes should resolve all the linting issues that were causing the build to fail. |
| """ | ||
| Generate an HTML report from code integrity analysis results. | ||
|
|
||
| Args: | ||
| results: The analysis results | ||
| output_path: The path to write the HTML report to | ||
| mode: The mode of the report (single, compare, or pr) | ||
| """ | ||
| # Validate results | ||
| if not results: | ||
| raise ValueError("Results cannot be empty") | ||
|
|
||
| # Check for required keys based on mode | ||
| if mode == "single": | ||
| _validate_results(results, mode) | ||
| elif mode == "compare": | ||
| _validate_results(results, mode) | ||
| elif mode == "pr": | ||
| _validate_results(results, mode) | ||
| else: | ||
| raise ValueError(f"Invalid mode: {mode}") | ||
|
|
||
| # Create HTML content based on the analysis mode |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggestion: Fix docstring syntax error
| """ | |
| Generate an HTML report from code integrity analysis results. | |
| Args: | |
| results: The analysis results | |
| output_path: The path to write the HTML report to | |
| mode: The mode of the report (single, compare, or pr) | |
| """ | |
| # Validate results | |
| if not results: | |
| raise ValueError("Results cannot be empty") | |
| # Check for required keys based on mode | |
| if mode == "single": | |
| _validate_results(results, mode) | |
| elif mode == "compare": | |
| _validate_results(results, mode) | |
| elif mode == "pr": | |
| _validate_results(results, mode) | |
| else: | |
| raise ValueError(f"Invalid mode: {mode}") | |
| # Create HTML content based on the analysis mode | |
| def generate_html_report(results: Dict[str, Any], output_path: str, mode: str = "single") -> None: | |
| """Generate an HTML report from code integrity analysis results. | |
| Args: | |
| results: Analysis results dictionary containing required keys based on mode | |
| output_path: Path to save the HTML report | |
| mode: Analysis mode (single, compare, or pr) | |
| Raises: | |
| ValueError: If mode is invalid or required keys are missing in results | |
| IOError: If file operations fail | |
| """ | |
| if not isinstance(results, dict): | |
| raise ValueError("Results must be a dictionary") | |
| _validate_results(results, mode) |
| """ | ||
| Generate an HTML report from code integrity analysis results. | ||
|
|
||
| Args: | ||
| results: The analysis results | ||
| output_path: The path to write the HTML report to | ||
| mode: The mode of the report (single, compare, or pr) | ||
| """ | ||
| # Validate results | ||
| if not results: | ||
| raise ValueError("Results cannot be empty") | ||
|
|
||
| # Check for required keys based on mode | ||
| if mode == "single": | ||
| _validate_results(results, mode) | ||
| elif mode == "compare": | ||
| _validate_results(results, mode) | ||
| elif mode == "pr": | ||
| _validate_results(results, mode) | ||
| else: | ||
| raise ValueError(f"Invalid mode: {mode}") | ||
|
|
||
| # Create HTML content based on the analysis mode |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggestion: Fix docstring syntax error
| """ | |
| Generate an HTML report from code integrity analysis results. | |
| Args: | |
| results: The analysis results | |
| output_path: The path to write the HTML report to | |
| mode: The mode of the report (single, compare, or pr) | |
| """ | |
| # Validate results | |
| if not results: | |
| raise ValueError("Results cannot be empty") | |
| # Check for required keys based on mode | |
| if mode == "single": | |
| _validate_results(results, mode) | |
| elif mode == "compare": | |
| _validate_results(results, mode) | |
| elif mode == "pr": | |
| _validate_results(results, mode) | |
| else: | |
| raise ValueError(f"Invalid mode: {mode}") | |
| # Create HTML content based on the analysis mode | |
| def generate_html_report(results: Dict[str, Any], output_path: str, mode: str = "single") -> None: | |
| """Generate an HTML report from code integrity analysis results. | |
| Args: | |
| results: Analysis results dictionary containing required keys based on mode | |
| output_path: Path to save the HTML report | |
| mode: Analysis mode (single, compare, or pr) | |
| Raises: | |
| ValueError: If mode is invalid or required keys are missing in results | |
| IOError: If file operations fail | |
| """ | |
| if not isinstance(results, dict): | |
| raise ValueError("Results must be a dictionary") | |
| _validate_results(results, mode) |
| repo_path: Path to the repository | ||
| config: Optional configuration options |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggestion: Add error handling
| repo_path: Path to the repository | |
| config: Optional configuration options | |
| # Create a codebase from the repository | |
| try: | |
| codebase = Codebase.from_repo(repo_path) | |
| except Exception as e: | |
| print(f"Error creating codebase: {e}") | |
| return {"error": str(e), "total_functions": 0, "total_classes": 0, "total_files": 0, "total_errors": 0} |
| repo_path: Path to the repository | ||
| config: Optional configuration options |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggestion: Add error handling
| repo_path: Path to the repository | |
| config: Optional configuration options | |
| # Create a codebase from the repository | |
| try: | |
| codebase = Codebase.from_repo(repo_path) | |
| except Exception as e: | |
| print(f"Error creating codebase: {e}") | |
| return {"error": str(e), "total_functions": 0, "total_classes": 0, "total_files": 0, "total_errors": 0} |
1 participant
User description
This PR implements the Code Integrity Analyzer module as requested. The implementation includes:
The implementation follows the design outlined in the PR description and provides a comprehensive tool for analyzing code quality and detecting potential issues in codebases.
Features Implemented:
Usage:
💻 View my work • About Codegen
Summary by Sourcery
Implement a comprehensive Code Integrity Analyzer module with support for single branch, branch comparison, and pull request analysis modes
New Features:
Documentation:
PR Type
Enhancement, Documentation
Description
Introduces a comprehensive Code Integrity Analyzer module.
Adds HTML report generation for analysis results.
Implements a command-line script for running analyses.
Adds module-level documentation and usage examples.
Changes walkthrough 📝
__init__.py
Add analysis module initialization and exportscodegen-on-oss/codegen_on_oss/analysis/init.py
analyze_pr.
__init__.py
Add outputs module initialization and documentationcodegen-on-oss/codegen_on_oss/outputs/init.py
__init__.py
Add scripts module initialization and documentationcodegen-on-oss/codegen_on_oss/scripts/init.py
code_integrity_analyzer.py
Implement Code Integrity Analyzer and analysis utilitiescodegen-on-oss/codegen_on_oss/analysis/code_integrity_analyzer.py
analysis.
callbacks, imports, complexity, type hints, and duplication.
html_report_generator.py
Add HTML report generator for code integrity analysiscodegen-on-oss/codegen_on_oss/outputs/html_report_generator.py
codebase details.
analyze_code_integrity_example.py
Add CLI script for code integrity analysiscodegen-on-oss/codegen_on_oss/scripts/analyze_code_integrity_example.py
generation.
Description by Korbit AI
What change is being made?
Implement a Code Integrity Analyzer module with analysis, outputs, and scripts for analyzing, comparing, and generating reports on code integrity issues.
Why are these changes being made?
The changes provide a comprehensive solution to analyze and ensure codebase quality by detecting potential code integrity issues such as missing docstrings, unused imports, and duplicate code. Additionally, the module facilitates generating HTML reports and performing branch comparisons which are critical for maintaining the code health and preventing regressions, particularly in collaborative environments and workflows where pull requests are used.